Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

ardmacha · 27-04-2013 08:20PM

The services are in demand but all service providers are not necessarily in demand. It depends on the quality of the service provided and the price charged.

Quite, people can go to Griffith College instead of TCD for instance. They rarely do though, if TCD will have them.

tayto lover · 27-04-2013 08:25PM

sean200 wrote: »

i tell you how it works
i was a member of a gym but because my wages might be cut i decided last week not to renew it.
The private sector employer or owner of the gym rang me on friday and as good as begged me to renew it and keep lowering the price.
I told him my reason again and he said he understood
In our conversation he said he was losing a lot of member that worked in my work place and said he was going to have to let staff go so hence more people on the dole
well done you FG /labour idiots

Many people doing their own painting and decorating, servicing their own cars and shopping in the north again as it's cheaper. I have never shopped in the north but I don't blame people for trying to make their money go further. When you hear the likes of I.S.M.E. and I.B.E.C. coming out and publically stating that they want peoples wages cut I have no sorrow for them when they lose business.

sharper · 27-04-2013 08:38PM

sean200 wrote: »

i tell you how it works
i was a member of a gym but because my wages might be cut i decided last week not to renew it.

And if we increase taxes for the entire population instead, how many will cut their gym subscriptions then?

Why is your choice of how to spend money better than alternative uses for it? The government is waiting for cuts in pay to materialise to hire more Gardai so instead of "sean200's gym subscription" we can have more police on the streets.

tayto lover · 27-04-2013 08:44PM

sharper wrote: »

And if we increase taxes for the entire population instead, how many will cut their gym subscriptions then?

Why is your choice of how to spend money better than alternative uses for it? The government is waiting for cuts in pay to materialise to hire more Gardai so instead of "sean200's gym subscription" we can have more police on the streets.

I.B.E.C. and I.S.M.E. will love your thinking :rolleyes:
You'd rather have more Garda on the streets than business open. Brilliant.

sharper · 27-04-2013 08:49PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I.B.E.C. and I.S.M.E. will love your thinking :rolleyes:
You'd rather have more Garda on the streets than business open. Brilliant.

I proposed a single alternative to sean200's idea of how to spend money, it purely illustrates that his idea of how to spend it is not the only it could be put to.

If we tax someone else to pay sean200 then we're taking it from someone else so he can buy a gym subscription, what use was it being put to elsewhere? Well we don't know do we? Nevertheless sean200 is confident his use was the best.

Alternatively we borrow the money needed. Firstly we have to justify elsewhere that sean200 and his gym are "worth it" and right now we cant, the only people willing to lend to us at sensible rates say sean200 needs a paycut. Secondly we have to pay interest on that borrowed money, the cost of which adds up the more we spend.

sean200 · 27-04-2013 08:56PM

hmmm wrote: »

Yeah, they should cut back further on spending on health, and raise everyone's taxes so that you can keep going to the gym. Damn them and their spending priorities. Will anyone think of the farmer's markets and new car dealers?

it pays a private sector wage but now he can join the other 400k on the dole
If more people looked after there health we would not need such spending on health and we could cut taxes so maybe you should get off u ass
???

sean200 · 27-04-2013 09:05PM

sharper wrote: »

And if we increase taxes for the entire population instead, how many will cut their gym subscriptions then?

Why is your choice of how to spend money better than alternative uses for it? The government is waiting for cuts in pay to materialise to hire more Gardai so instead of "sean200's gym subscription" we can have more police on the streets.

But only a fool like you thinks like that
None of the billion saved will be put back in to the Irish economy the same as the billion saved from the anglo deal.
who asked to raise taxes???
The fact remain that a private sector employer is about to let staff go and that will be repeated across all sectors
So take the billion and put more on the dole i don't care as i can afford the paycut but can the private sector??

sharper · 27-04-2013 09:07PM

sean200 wrote: »

who asked to raise taxes???

How are you expecting government spending to be financed? And leave the insults out of it please.

sean200 · 27-04-2013 09:12PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Many people doing their own painting and decorating, servicing their own cars and shopping in the north again as it's cheaper. I have never shopped in the north but I don't blame people for trying to make their money go further. When you hear the likes of I.S.M.E. and I.B.E.C. coming out and publically stating that they want peoples wages cut I have no sorrow for them when they lose business.

IBEC dont give to f****s about a private sector employee and neither dose ISME.
They are about profit and screw the employee, and they know what happens in the public sector will happen in the private sector.
So as the public sector are gone in to saving mode and not spending be it on the gym or pissing it up against the wall more in the private sector will join the dole
For some on this if ye want i can draw ye a picture

Tea drinker · 27-04-2013 09:12PM

EF wrote: »

Two weeks to come up with a deal to get the required savings or the government will legislate for pay cuts it seems.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0427/386928-croke-park/

I don't see why each area in the public sector cannot just be given a lower budget to spend and put the responsibility on senior management, along with stronger powers to manage performance, to find the savings. Waste still does exist in the public sector, not to extent of €1bn, but there are still a lot of measures which can be taken by individual sectors to make savings before going after pay and working conditions in a blanket way.

But the main problem is pay is too high in the first place.
secondary problems such as waste and performance management should not be lumped in with pay reform.
Same as not lumping in the promissory note savings with PS pay simply does not compute. Lets keep separate things separate and not muddy issues.

Also those savings on repayments belong to all of us, not just the PS, in spite of what Jack O'Connor thinks or says.

sean200 · 27-04-2013 09:21PM

sharper wrote: »

How are you expecting government spending to be financed? And leave the insults out of it please.

My cutting out waste
We spend billions extra on drugs just to keep the pharmaceutical industry in this country happy
we spend million on agency staff ( it is crazy the wages a agency nurse costs)
we have 2 or 3 schools in every parish costing millions, we only need one
we have two many 3rd level collages some half full
we have people who pay no tax as they write off all their profits
and i could go on and on

sean200 · 27-04-2013 09:24PM

Tea drinker wrote: »

But the main problem is pay is too high in the first place.
secondary problems such as waste and performance management should not be lumped in with pay reform.
Same as not lumping in the promissory note savings with PS pay simply does not compute. Lets keep separate things separate and not muddy issues.

Also those savings on repayments belong to all of us, not just the PS, in spite of what Jack O'Connor thinks or says.

i agree but why don't they use it to create jobs???
when you say pay is to high it is not for about 50% of the public sector

sharper · 27-04-2013 09:26PM

sean200 wrote: »

My cutting out waste

Well that's a nice easily solution isn't it.

Cutting waste though means cutting money that's currently going somewhere and being used for something, like gym subscriptions.

How do we know those gym subscriptions are "waste" but yours is not?

Good loser · 27-04-2013 10:44PM

Cutting Govt expenditure rather than raising taxes is much more likely to increase job numbers in the economy. So those who argue against CP 2 on the basis of it 'cutting consumer spending' and thus jobs are plain wrong. Anyway why should public sector workers, or pensioners, be chosen as the route by which consumer spending is kept up? Surely the burden of keeping up consumer spending should be carried equally by all citizens?

Since 2008 it appears Govt spending has only fallen by €1.6 bn or about 3%. This is a totally inadequate figure in the context of our deficit and borrowings, not to mention the troika. Pay and social welfare will have to be cut deeply.

Mind you I consider the average wage levels in the semi states (and banks) are scandalous. The Govt should raid them for 'special dividends' - to be paid for by levying the staff annually until the recession ends. I assume their wage rates are frozen.

donalg1 · 27-04-2013 10:57PM

sean200 wrote: »

i tell you how it works
i was a member of a gym but because my wages might be cut i decided last week not to renew it.
The private sector employer or owner of the gym rang me on friday and as good as begged me to renew it and keep lowering the price.
I told him my reason again and he said he understood
In our conversation he said he was losing a lot of member that worked in my work place and said he was going to have to let staff go so hence more people on the dole
well done you FG /labour idiots

This is my point exactly, I know the effects that pay cuts have on other sectors. Some want to see paycuts in the public sector I don't because I know what the knock on effects will be.

The ones that want these cuts are very short sighted or work in companies that are not dependent on Irish people having some spending ability.

ardmacha · 27-04-2013 11:21PM

Surely the burden of keeping up consumer spending should be carried equally by all citizens?

Surely the burden of maintaining public services should be carried equally by all citizens?

Going Forward · 27-04-2013 11:41PM

Public sector, poor public sector...........

Was the PS in the past a little "spoiled" to an extent? Maybe...

But it meant that a significant portion of its salary went back into the local economy, which when boiled down equates to a circular tax take.

It also meant that rightly or wrongly the PS employees also indulged/exploited the relatively good deal on offer- they used the security of their contracts to buy relatively decent goods/houses/cars etc, in the knowledge that they were in a position, (unlike the sub prime category who also had cash thrown at them) to actually easily repay their debts.

In other words they shopped and spent a few bob and through no fault of their own became accustomed, as people do, to their (expected and previously guaranteed) income level.

Presumably this previous spending power is good for the economy.

Presumably cutting their pay to something close to subsistence is not?

Mr. teddywinkles · 28-04-2013 08:22AM

Going Forward wrote: »

Public sector, poor public sector...........

Was the PS in the past a little "spoiled" to an extent? Maybe...

But it meant that a significant portion of its salary went back into the local economy, which when boiled down equates to a circular tax take.

It also meant that rightly or wrongly the PS employees also indulged/exploited the relatively good deal on offer- they used the security of their contracts to buy relatively decent goods/houses/cars etc, in the knowledge that they were in a position, (unlike the sub prime category who also had cash thrown at them) to actually easily repay their debts.

In other words they shopped and spent a few bob and through no fault of their own became accustomed, as people do, to their (expected and previously guaranteed) income level.

Presumably this previous spending power is good for the economy.

Presumably cutting their pay to something close to subsistence is not?

A bit of an extreme word there isn't it
So in turn my company should double my wages to buy their products to keep them afloat is that it

Tea drinker · 28-04-2013 01:17PM

sean200 wrote: »

i agree but why don't they use it to create jobs???
when you say pay is to high it is not for about 50% of the public sector

No argument from me sean200, I think you are right on both counts. But iirc the union proposals are that everyone in the country over 100k get taxed higher, not anything about reducing income for 50% of the PS?
I might be wrong.

I think we should be looking at capital projects which increase Irelands competitiveness, maybe it is time to kick off the metro north, build up and use Ireland deepwater ports as a processing station on the way to smaller EU ports, As likes of Rotterdam have backlogs for deepwater ships.
Maybe there are energy projects which are worth pursuing.
As long as we can't nearly afford to run the country all this is a pipe dream.
More cuts, worse service to be expected.

sharper · 28-04-2013 02:57PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Surely the burden of maintaining public services should be carried equally by all citizens?

You're switching topic here - several posters have been arguing that a cut in public sector pay will lead to a cut in demand for private sector services e.g. sean200's gym membership.

A relevant question is why is this the responsibility of public servants? Is it part of their job description? Why are they asking for pay to help drive consumer spending as if it's part of their job?

You responded to that query by shifting back to the services themselves. If sean200 et all want to argue a cut in pay will cause a reduction in service level then they should that, not argue the implications for consumer spending.

sharper · 28-04-2013 03:07PM

donalg1 wrote: »

The ones that want these cuts are very short sighted or work in companies that are not dependent on Irish people having some spending ability.

Every single person living in the country relies on the domestic economy and the public service. Every single one of them has an interest in good services.

Ireland is a small export lead economy. You cannot propose solutions which will wreck exports and then shrug your shoulders with a "I dunno" or characterise these concerns as being exclusive to all other concerns.

When Ireland is paying its way (i.e. able to fund government spending from its own economy) then you can argue about what share of that you're entitled to. Until then you're forced to accept reality which is that it doesn't matter what share of money that does not exist you feel entitled to, it's not there and will never be there.

Simply "resisting cuts" is not an answer to anything. You might as well ask us all to get together and "resist heart disease" or "resist the weather" because none of these things care much about whatever position you've reasoned yourself into in terms of what you deserve.

Maybe public servants do deserve a lovely sunny day but it doesn't mean they'll get one and nobody has the ability to give them one. Maybe they do deserve their current pay levels but nobody has the power to give them that either.

You can strike if you wish but you're just lashing out against the regular tax payer that has no power or ability to meet your pay demands.

sharper · 28-04-2013 03:12PM

Going Forward wrote: »

Presumably this previous spending power is good for the economy.

Presumably having a quarter of the workforce busy building houses is good for the economy, their lack of doing so must therefore be not good for the economy.

It's well recognised what's good for the economy is efficient and sustainable use of resources.

In so much as no builder would choose to go out of business and no brick layer would choose to become unemployed it's clear the building boom could not continue nor was it in the interest of the population generally to pay more and more and more for the same houses.

All forms of spending are not equal nor are all uses of money. If you want to argue "spending=good" you first have to show how that spending can be maintained and then that the use public servants put it to is the best use of it.

For example, we could cut public pay by X and put X into building infrastructure. We could cut HSE administrators by Y and put Y into hiring Gardai.

carpejugulum · 28-04-2013 03:59PM

sean200 wrote: »

With the latest bulling by the government all union should ballot for all out strike and teach idiots like Enda Kenny a lesson

What lesson is that?
That some of the best paid teachers in the world working for a bankrupt employer cannot be cut because something something they deserve it? Or because they can hold the tax payer to ransom?

oscarBravo · 28-04-2013 04:08PM

sean200 wrote: »

1 Day a week for 5 weeks on a different day each week ( resulting in a 20% pay loss or 10% loss of take home pay
If not resolved it will go to 2 day a week for 2 weeks and if need be all out after that

I'm always a little bemused when people who are on the breadline and about to end up living on the roadside during negotiations can suddenly afford to take a 20%, 40%, 100% pay cut during a strike.

sean200 wrote: »

we have 2 or 3 schools in every parish costing millions, we only need one

So we should save money through compulsory redundancy of teachers?

vinylbomb · 28-04-2013 05:20PM

An instructive piece in the Independent from a few days ago.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/seamus-coffey-ireland-is-not-in-a-position-to-move-to-zero-austerity-29219535.html

vinylbomb · 28-04-2013 05:27PM

sean200 wrote: »

i tell you how it works
i was a member of a gym but because my wages might be cut i decided last week not to renew it.

I tell you how it works.

Me and two of my mates had to cancel our gym memberships to be able to pay the raised taxes necessary to pay your wages which allowed you have a gym membership in the first place.

vinylbomb · 28-04-2013 05:35PM

donalg1 wrote: »

The ones that want these cuts are very short sighted or work in companies that are not dependent on Irish people having some spending ability.

We have to BORROW to pay the PS wages.
Fair enough, PS spend their cash in the economy but they dont raise interest on the money they are spending - yet that money is BORROWED and needs to be repaid with interest - this results in a net loss to the economy.

And with the nasty side effect of higher taxes all round to cover the loan repayments.

There will inevitably be a drop in consumer spending off the back of a reduction in the PS wage bill, but that is at least then the economy becomes self-sustaining.
Continually borrrowing to cover something we cant afford is not.

tayto lover · 28-04-2013 06:24PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

I tell you how it works.

Me and two of my mates had to cancel our gym memberships to be able to pay the raised taxes necessary to pay your wages which allowed you have a gym membership in the first place.

Jesus haven't you a great sense of your own importance.
I pay for peoples dole, OAP pensions, childrens allowance etc but man do i not ram it down their throats.
Shameful post.

tayto lover · 28-04-2013 06:26PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

We have to BORROW to pay the PS wages.
Fair enough, PS spend their cash in the economy but they dont raise interest on the money they are spending - yet that money is BORROWED and needs to be repaid with interest - this results in a net loss to the economy.

And with the nasty side effect of higher taxes all round to cover the loan repayments.

There will inevitably be a drop in consumer spending off the back of a reduction in the PS wage bill, but that is at least then the economy becomes self-sustaining.
Continually borrrowing to cover something we cant afford is not.

You should donate half of your net pay to the Govt. It will make you a stand-up citizen and give you great satisfaction.

vinylbomb · 28-04-2013 06:54PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Jesus haven't you a great sense of your own importance.

Nope.

tayto lover wrote: »

I pay for peoples dole, OAP pensions, childrens allowance etc but man do i not ram it down their throats.

As do we all. The point I was making is that I have had an element of my discretionary spending removed through taxation so as to support the discretionary spending of sean200.

tayto lover wrote: »

Shameful post.

Laughable statement.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments